EVALUATION OF SELF CONSOLIDATING CONCRETE AND …geotech.eng.usf.edu/Downloads/2018-0124_Return...

EVALUATION OF SELF CONSOLIDATING CONCRETE AND CLASS IV

CONCRETE FLOW IN DRILLED SHAFTS – PART 1

BDV25 TWO977-25

Task 3 Deliverable – Corrosion Potential Evaluations

Submitted to

The Florida Department of Transportation

Research Center

605 Suwannee Street, MS30

Tallahassee, FL 32399

[email protected]

Submitted by

Sarah J. Mobley, P.E., Doctoral Candidate

Kelly M. Costello, E.I., Doctoral Candidate

and

Principal Investigators

Gray Mullins, Ph.D., P.E., Professor, PI

Abla Zayed, Ph.D., Professor, Co-PI

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

University of South Florida

4202 E. Fowler Avenue, ENB 118

Tampa, FL 33620

(813) 974-5845

[email protected]

July, 2017 to December, 2017

mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]

Preface

This deliverable is submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements set forth and agreed upon

at the onset of the project and indicates a degree of completion. It also serves as an interim report

of the research progress and findings as they pertain to the individual task-based goals that

comprise the overall project scope. Herein, the FDOT project manager’s approval and guidance

are sought regarding the applicability of the intermediate research findings and the subsequent

research direction. The project tasks, as outlined in the scope of services, are presented below.

The subject of the present report is highlighted in bold.

Task 1. Literature Review (pages 3-90)

Task 2a. Exploratory Evaluation of Previously Cast Lab Shaft Specimens (page 91-287)

Task 2b. Field Exploratory Evaluation of Existing Bridges with Drilled Shaft Foundations

Task 3. Corrosion Potential Evaluations

Task 4. Porosity and Hydration Products Determinations

Task 5. Rheology Modeling and Testing

Task 6. Effects of Construction Approach

Task 7. Reporting: Draft and Final Report

The proposed study will culminate with a comprehensive final report describing all aspects of the

study. This interim report is also intended to serve as a living draft of what will ultimately be the

final report. As such, all previously submitted interim reports to date will be included for

completeness (in greyed-out font) but may contain changes based on any new findings; this is

especially applicable to the Literature Review component.

In looking forward to the final document, the updated corrosion related information from the

Task 2a submittal has been included in this submittal.

344

5 Chapter Five: Corrosion Potent ial Evaluat ions (Task 3 Del iverable)

Corrosion is most often defined as the destruction of a metallic material due to a reaction with its

environment. Practically all environments are corrosive to some degree, but this research focuses

on corrosion in wet environments. Uniform corrosion in wet environments accounts for a large

majority of all corrosion and usually involves aqueous solutions or electrolytes. Uniform

corrosion is characterized by a chemical or electrochemical reaction that occurs over a large area.

This reaction thins the metal to a point of eventual failure. Overall, corrosion represents the

greatest destruction of metal on a tonnage basis, but this does not raise major industry concerns

because uniform corrosion is both predictable and preventable in most instances (Fontana, 1967).

While corrosion resistance is often dictated by concrete quality and cover thickness, the presence

of possible pathways leading directly to the reinforcing steel is of great importance, yet rarely

addressed in design. This Task focuses on the electrochemical properties of 36 lab-cast drilled

shaft specimens constructed over a four-year period.

The approach was multifaceted: (1) establish electrical continuity in the reinforcement system,

(2) conduct surface potential measurements, and (3) assess the potential over time while

exposing the shaft surface to a chloride solution.

5.1 Corrosion Rate Expressions

Corrosion rates have been expressed by several means throughout literature, such as milligrams

per square centimeter per day, grams per square inch per hour and percent weight loss. None of

these give any indication of penetration. Mils per year (mpy) is the expression most commonly

used in engineering to illustrate the rate in terms of weight loss or thinning of a structural piece.

The formula is as follows:

𝑚𝑝𝑦 =534𝑊

𝐷𝐴𝑇

where W weight loss (g)

D density of specimen (g/cm3)

A area of specimen (in2)

T exposure time (hr)

This expression uses whole numbers, which are easily handled and it can be used to predict the

lifespan of a given structural component.

5.2 Corrosion Lifespan Analysis

To remain active, the corrosion process requires oxygen, moisture, and a conductive electrolyte.

Commonly, this electrolyte is saltwater, which leads to chloride-induced corrosion (sulfates can

345

also induce corrosion but the effect is comparatively insignificant when chlorides are present). If

one of the three corrosion components is absent, the chemical reaction will stall until all elements

are present. Consequently, the serviceability of a drilled shaft and the resultant life expectancy is

dependent on the surrounding environment, isolation (concrete cover thickness), concrete

quality, and the ability of the encased reinforcement to withstand aggressive environments.

These parameters can be defined as:

𝐶𝑠 Concentration of chloride ions at the concrete surface (environment)

𝑥𝑐𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟 Concrete cover (isolation) D Apparent diffusion coefficient (concrete quality)

𝐶𝑇 Chloride threshold at which corrosion initiates (steel type dependent)

The amount of cementitious material in the concrete mix design, known as the cement factor

(CF), should also be included, along with the presence of any cracks. For the case of drilled

shafts, mattressing, or channeling as described in Chapter 2, should also be considered.

In a salt water environment, chlorides accumulate on the surface of a structure. As previously

stated, the corrosion process requires that chlorides, moisture, and oxygen be present at the steel

surface. When a structure is new, chlorides must diffuse through the concrete cover to reach the

surface of the steel. This diffusion time can be calculated using the parameters defined above

(Sagüés, 2002; Mullins, et al, 2009). The time that it takes for the chloride concentration to reach

a threshold value at the concrete-steel interface, after which corrosion begins to occur, is known

as the corrosion initiation time (𝑡𝑖), and it represents the most critical designable aspect of corrosion control. Once corrosion begins, corrosion products begin forming on the surface of the

reinforcing steel, increasing the volume since the reaction products have a larger total volume

than the reactants. This volume increase can initiate cracking that may propagate to the concrete

surface and compromise the integrity of the structural element.

The traditional school of thought assumes that structures in a fully submerged environment are

sufficiently separated from an oxygen source as to prohibit corrosion, recent studies have shown

that this is not always the case and that under water structures can show signs of highly localized

corrosive behavior (Walsh, 2016). Conservatively and for the sake of simplicity, the corrosion

free life expectancy of all reinforced concrete structures can be simply determined using 𝒕𝑖.

5.2.1 Corrosion Initiation Time

The corrosion initiation time is commonly computed using an error function wherein Cs, xcover,

D, and CT are all inputs.

𝐶𝑇 = 𝐶𝑠(1 − 𝑒𝑟𝑓𝑥

2√𝐷𝑡𝑖)

346

A convenient method of solving for ti is to plot the function, with the ratio CT/Cs (dimensionless)

on the y-axis and reading down to determine the x-axis value. The x-axis is expressed in the

following form:

𝑥 − 𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑠 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 = 𝑡𝑖4𝐷/𝑥2

5.2.2 Chloride Threshold

Chloride threshold (CT) for a plain steel rebar can be approximated to be 0.004 times the Cement

Factor (Sagüés, 2002). For a typical drilled shaft concrete mix design, there is a minimum of

600pcy of cementitious material (CF=600), which results in the following calculation for the

chloride ion concentration needed to initiate corrosion at the surface of the steel:

CT=0.004(600)=2.4pcy

5.2.3 Surface Chloride Concentration

The driving force for chloride diffusion into the concrete is dictated by the chloride concentration

at the concrete surface, Cs. For a soil with a chloride content of 1200 ppm (2.0pcy) the CT/Cs

ratio would be greater than one, which is out of the range of the chart (Figure 2.24) and therefore

non-corrosive. When the CT/Cs is that high, the 𝑡𝑖4𝐷/𝑥2 expression can be conservatively

assumed to be 100.

5.2.4 Apparent Diffusion Coefficient

Laboratory studies have shown that the apparent diffusion coefficient (D) for concrete mixes

containing fly ash ranges from 1x10-8

cm/s to 7x10-8

cm/s with an average value of 2x10-8

cm/s

(Sagüés, 2002). Assuming worst case scenario values of D=1x10-8

cm/s and a concrete cover of

7.5 cm (3 in), the resulting time to initial corrosion works out to be 450 years. This is well

outside of the anticipated design life of a structure (50-100 years.) This value corresponds to dry

structures with mild soil conditions. Placing the structure in a salt water marine environment

reduces the CT/Cs value to 0.1, which results in an initiation time of 16 years for 3 inches of

cover. If the cover thickness were doubled to 6 inches, the initiation time would be resultantly

quadrupled to 64 years.

5.3 Anomalies and Corrosion Potential

Design lifespan computations assume a contiguous concrete cover. As noted in Chapter 3, field

and laboratory observations have shown reflective quilting (laitance channel formation) in shaft

specimens constructed in wet conditions, where concrete is placed as a slurry using a tremie.

Quilting introduces the possibility of direct ground or sea water access to the reinforcing cage,

thus negating the afforded protection that the above calculations represent, along with the

calculations themselves. This in essence results in a zero cover thickness. Identifying the effects

of quilting or other surface anomalies forms the basis for much of the efforts in this Task.

347

5.4 Establishing Electrical Continuity

Corrosion in reinforced concrete is electrochemical in nature. The corrosion process involves the

flow of electrons from an anodic site to a cathodic site on the reinforcing steel system. Corrosion

requires four basic elements: anode, cathode, electrolyte and metallic path. The anode is the site

of the corrosion and constitutes the source of current flow. The cathode is corrosion free and

receives the flow of current. The electrolyte is a medium capable of conducting electrical current.

In reinforced concrete, the fluid filled pores serve as the electrolyte. The metallic path is the

connection between the anode and the cathode which allows the return of current. In the simplest

terms, cathodic protection is the process of converting anodic sites to cathodic sites through the

application of applied current. Establishing a metallic path, hereafter referred to as electrical

continuity as per industry nomenclature, is essential to this process.

Many organizations published cathodic protection installation guidelines that state electrical

continuity must exist. However, specifications regarding a procedure to establish continuity are

vague, varied, or non-existent. Literature suggests that continuity guidelines roughly fall into two

general categories: undefined and poorly defined. Undefined guidelines state that continuity is

required without referencing a procedure (Sagues, 1995; NACE,2007; NACE, 2016). Poorly

defined guidelines require that continuity be established through the testing of electric potential

(SIKA, 2010; DTI, 1981; Kentucky, 2011; Clear, 1993). This test makes voltage measurements

between two rebar in an effort to assess the electrical connectivity and where a 1mV threshold is

used to delineate when connectivity exists (or not). Mutual resistance is a similar test but where a

1Ohm threshold is used.

The Strategic Highway Research Program published the New Cathodic Protection Installation

guide (Clear, 1993), which references an AASHTO standard that was still in draft form

(AASHTO, 1994). The referenced specification was mislabeled by Clear as AASHTO TF29-

650.37 as it was only a draft and an incomplete document. Today it can only be found in

AASHTO TF29-650.30.15 from the published Task Force 29 report, Guide to Specifications for

Cathodic Protection of Concrete Bridge Decks. This volume, currently out of print, established

the following requirements for electrical continuity: “Electrical continuity exists between

reinforcing bars or between reinforcing bars and other metal items when the millivolt difference

between them is no more than 1.0 mV, the DC resistance is less than 1 ohm and the DC

resistance measured in the forward and reverse directions does not exceed 1 ohm,” (AASHTO,

1994). Though Clear states that the AASHTO procedure was utilized to establish electrical

continuity, no indication was given where resistance measurements were taken, and relied on

millivolt data to support assertions of continuity. Nevertheless, Clear (1993) may be the only

work that cites the AASHTO recommended procedure.

This inconsistency in specifications creates uncertainty regarding a satisfactory practice.

Further, few procedures have been established, and there are no justifications given for a

particular practice (e.g. the rationale for less than 1mV potential difference). This section

describes results of an extensive series of experiments that were performed to determine the

statistical validity of methods used to establish electrical continuity and provide justification for

implementation of a common practice.

348

5.4.1 Experimental Approach

Mutual potential and mutual resistance tests were performed on all vertical reinforcements for

each of twenty-three, 42-in. diameter, 24-in. tall simulated drilled shaft specimens. Each

specimen included seven vertical steel reinforcing bars (rebar) connected with horizontal

stirrups encased in concrete (Figure 5.1). Prior to testing, the exposed end of each vertical

rebar was drilled, tapped, and a stainless-steel screw was installed to establish a satisfactory

electrical connection (Figure 5.2). The rebar on each shaft were labeled and testing was

completed between all bar combinations (21 combinations per shaft).

Figure 5.1 Reinforcement cage prior to concrete placement (left) Completed shaft specimen

(right).

Figure 5.2 Stainless steel connection.

Mutual potential was measured using a standard multimeter on the 2000mV setting, and where

the positive and negative leads were connected to two different rebar. This wiring arrangement causes

349

one rebar to serve as a working electrode and the other to serve as a reference electrode, the

reading on the multimeter is the difference in potential between the two connection points.

Mutual resistance was measured using a Nilsson meter. A Nilsson meter is a four pin,

alternating current, null balancing ohmmeter customarily used to measure resistivity in soils. For

the purpose of this test, the meter was used in a two-pin configuration (Figure 5.3), where

once again the two leads were attached to different rebar for all 21 combinations per specimen.

The Nilsson meter works by generating a low voltage current between the C1 and C2 posts.

Figure 5.3 Nilsson meter two pin configuration.

The detector senses a voltage drop between the two posts, compares it to internal resistors, and

indicates a difference on the null detector. When the null detector is balanced using the range

switch and the dial, the resistance in ohms is the dial reading multiplied by the range switch

position. This method was chosen over DC resistance because of the increased

stability provided in the presence of an electrolyte. Mutual potential and mutual

resistance tests were conducted in immediate succession to ensure similarity in testing

conditions (Figure 5.4).

Figure 5.4 Mutual potential/ mutual resistance wiring diagram.

350

The resistance that occurs when two sections of rebar have a passive connection was used as the

threshold for continuity. In order to determine this, one section of rebar was laid on top of

another on an inert surface. The amount of overhang was kept at 4 inches to keep the force

between the bars consistent. Hose clamps were used to establish a connection port on each bar

and then alligator clips were used to connect those ports to the positive and negative inputs on a

DC multimeter (Figure 5.5). A total of 30 DC resistance readings were taken at varied locations

along the bottom rebar. The absence of an electrolyte permitted the use of DC resistance.

Figure 5.5 Rebar to rebar resistance wiring diagram.

The passive rebar to rebar DC resistance readings varied from 0 to 96 Ω. A median resistance

of 29 Ω was determined using a standard distribution curve (Figure 5.6). When determining a

realistic resistance threshold, it is critical to consider the number of rebar connections between

the test points as this will affect the upper limit substantially. The baseline used in this study is

conservatively set at 100 Ω because the potential readings below 100 Ω are consistently banded

within the threshold for connectivity and the highest passive rebar to rebar resistance is below

100 Ω.

Figure 5.6 The mutual potential versus mutual resistance graph.

Figure 5.7shows 483 data points from 21 resistance and 21 potential measurements for 23

subject shafts. The shafts are numbered according to the date of construction with a

parenthetical reference to the slurry type (B for bentonite, P for polymer, W for water) and

Marsh funnel viscosity. The graph displays distinct banding on both the horizontal and

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0 20 40 60 80 100

Per

cent

Dis

trib

uti

on (

%)

Resistance (W)

351

vertical axis. The potential values for data points with a resistance of less than 100Ω are

within 5mV of the zero excluding four outliers. Above 100Ω the potential values form a

vertical band between zero and 135mV.

Figure 5.7: Mutual potential vs mutual resistance

When the mutual potential is graphed against the mutual resistance, the data is banded along

the zero-millivolt potential line horizontally and above 100-Ω the data is banded vertically. The

data points scattered along the potential axis between zero and five are indicative of a well-

connected system as this reading reflects a negligible potential difference. The data points above

five millivolts that are also above 100 Ω would generally indicate a poorly connected system as

they exceed the inherent resistance between two pieces of reinforcing steel and exhibit a loss in

potential across the system. The points of particular interest are the points positioned at the base

of the vertical band in the data (Figure 5.8). These points have a resistance over 100-Ω but show

negligible loss of potential.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000

|Po

ten

tia

l| (

mV

)

Resistance (Ω)

Shaft 1 (B40) Shaft 2 (B90) Shaft 3 (B40) Shaft 4 (B50) Shaft 5 (B90) Shaft 6 (H2O)

Shaft 7 (B30) Shaft 8 (B40) Shaft 9 (B50) Shaft 11 (P60) Shaft 12 (P60) Shaft 13 (B30)

Shaft 14 (B30) Shaft 15 (B50) Shaft 16 (P85) Shaft 17 (P85) Shaft 18 (H2O) Shaft 19

Shaft 20 Shaft 21 (B40) Shaft 22 Shaft 23 (H2O) Shaft 24 (B40)

352

Figure 5.8: Data banding

The initial assumption that these high resistance, zero potential points were statistical scatter was

disproven when the sample data distribution for all points over 100 Ω was plotted against the

normal standard distribution curve for the same data range (Figure 5.9). The normal distribution

curve, created from a set of 300 randomly generated numbers, shows a 5% occurrence of points

within the -5mV to 5mV range.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000

|Po

ten

tia

l| (

mV

)

Resistance (Ω)

Continuous

Discontinuous

Questionable

353

The sample data distribution shows that the actual percentage of points in that range is 10%

(Figure 5.10). This is twice the expected distribution meaning that there is a 50% chance that the

readings are valid and constitute connectivity and a 50% chance that the readings are erroneous

scatter and signify a discontinuous system. Without both the mutual potential and mutual

resistance data it would be difficult to accurately diagnose the system. For that reason, the

present findings support the use of both mutual potential and mutual AC resistance when

establishing electrical continuity.

Figure 5.9: Potential distribution

Figure 5.10: Statistical importance

354

5.5 Multi Point Surface Mapping

Surface potential measurements are a strong indicator of active corrosion within a reinforced

concrete structure. This is performed by measuring the relative voltage potential between the

reinforcing steel and a copper-copper sulfate electrode in contact with the concrete surface

several inches away from the reinforcing steel.

Note: this process was discussed in Chapter 3 for previously cast specimens from other studies.

In this section, new data is presented for newly cast specimens.

The surface potential of each shaft specimen was mapped evenly over the surface using a

prescribed grid. A grid template was made out of single piece of 21-inch by 27-inch rubberized

plastic sheeting. A sharpened 2-inch diameter pipe was used to punch holes through the plastic

(Figure 5.11) in rows with a 3-inch center-to-center spacing in both directions (Figure 5.12). This

resulted in 80 measurement locations for each shaft. Surface potential testing was then conducted

per ASTM C876-09: Standard Test Method for Corrosion Potentials of Uncoated Reinforcing

Steel in Concrete, using a copper-copper sulfate reference electrode and a standard multi-meter.

Figure 5.11 Template Preparation Figure 5.12 Completed Template

The saturated copper-copper sulfate reference electrode was selected because it provides a stable

and reproducible potential over a temperature range of 32º to 120ºF. A wet sponge was used to

establish an electrical junction at the concrete surface by means of a low electrical resistance

liquid bridge between the concrete surface and the porous tip of the reference electrode. The

355

sponge was wrapped around the tip of the reference electrode and secured with a rubber band to

ensure continuous electrical contact.

Having previously established secure electrical connection to the reinforcing steel, an alligator

clip was used to connect the steel to the positive port on the multi-meter. Similarly, the negative

or COM port was attached to the cap of the reference electrode (Figure 5.13).

Figure 5.13 Surface Potential Mapping Wiring Diagram

Figure 5.14 Surface potential testing

356

Prior to commencing testing, all shafts were saturated for 24 hours or until such time as a test

measurement of corrosion potential revealed no change or fluctuation. Once saturated,

measurements were taken systematically across the 80 grid positions with the multi-meter set to

the ± 2000 millivolt range. The readings were recorded to the nearest millivolt.

5.5.1 Results

The data from Shaft 1 is shown in Table 5.1 as an example; the complete data sets for all shafts

are included in Appendix A.

A potential difference of zero signifies that no voltage is lost between the reference electrode and

the reinforcement. This is commonly used as an indicator of corrosion potential. For the purpose

of this testing method, corrosion potential was used as a diagnostic indicator of concrete quality.

Using the copper-copper sulfate potential data, the 80 values for each shaft were plotted on a

standard distribution (Figure 5.15) using a rank and percentage analysis. The median (potential at

50% ranking) or the E50 value was taken as the single point representative of each shaft for

comparative plotting purposes. This is the preferred industry approach for such evaluations.

Table 5.1: Sample surface potential data collected from shaft 1 (all shaft data in Appendix A).

Circumferential

position (in)

Vertical Position (in)

Bottom to Top

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21

0 -266 -289 -333 -337 -313 -298 -296 -289

3 -279 -292 -316 -317 -311 -301 -300 -293

6 -290 -302 -312 -312 -308 -306 -307 -303

9 -290 -308 -315 -312 -309 -310 -308 -307

12 -307 -316 -315 -318 -317 -314 -311 -302

15 -309 -317 -319 -325 -324 -322 -320 -311

18 -314 -323 -324 -332 -330 -328 -327 -320

21 -323 -330 -330 -338 -338 -342 -331 -322

24 -327 -330 -338 -344 -345 -348 -337 -329

27 -328 -333 -338 -344 -347 -349 -338 -337

357

Figure 5.15 Surface potential mapping data distribution

E50 potential data for all shafts ranged from -623mV to -155mV with a standard deviation of

91mV. A total of 25% of the test shafts had an E50 potential below -350mV, and all save one of

that 25% were constructed using mineral slurry (Table 5.2), the exception being a 46-second

polymer slurry for a self consolidating concrete sample shaft. All of the data was graphed

topographically using three-dimensional mapping software. Using a color coding system and

standardized contour spacing, the topographic surface maps illustrate the corrosion potential of

each shaft. Lighter colors denote low corrosion probability; darker colors high (Figure 5.16-

5.49). The shafts are numbered consecutively by date of construction. Additionally, the slurry

type and marsh funnel viscosity is included as a parenthetical wherein P indicated polymer, B

indicates bentonite and A indicates attapulgite mineral slurry.

Table 5.2 Comparison of all 36 shaft specimen E50 values.

Shaft # Slurry Mix E50 (mV) Shaft # Slurry Mix E50 (mV)

1 B44 4KDS -317 20 P130 4KDS -242

2 B105 4KDS -449 21 B40 4KDS -508

3 B40 4KDS -373 22 water 4KDS -250

4 B55 4KDS -443 23 water SCC -258

5 B90 4KDS -447 24 B40 SCC -425

6 Water 4KDS -155 25 A33 SCC -415

7 B30 4KDS -372 26 Water SCC -326.5

8 B40 4KDS -225 27 B41 SCC -246.5

9 B50 4KDS -383 28 P59 SCC -268.5

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

-600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0

Dis

trib

uti

on

(%

)

Potential Difference (mV)

CuCuSO4 Grid Testing Shaft 1

50th Percentile

358

Shaft # Slurry Mix E50 (mV) Shaft # Slurry Mix E50 (mV)

11 P65 4KDS -285 29 P46 SCC -410.5

12 P66 4KDS -190 30 B30 SCC -410

13 B30 4KDS -289 31 P98 4KDS -303.5

14 B30 4KDS -282 32 Water 4KDS -279

15 B56 4KDS -335 33 B39 4KDS -221

16 P85 4KDS -279 34 A39 4KDS -267.5

17 P85 4KDS -300 35 A200+ 4KDS -371.5

18 Water 4KDS -293 36 P47 4KDS -279

19 P60 4KDS -243

Figure 5.16: Surface potential map Shaft 1


359




360




361



362




363




364




365




366




367




368



369



Figure 5.48: Surface potential map Shaft 35 (blank spots were not testable)

370


5.6 Open Cell Potential Testing

The following testing procedure was developed in order to approximate long term corrosion

potential in a laboratory setting. Acrylic tanks were affixed to the surface of the shafts and

equipped with temperature sensors and titanium reference electrodes. The tanks were first filled

with clean water and then a chloride solution and the potential difference was monitored for a

total of 14 days.

Tanks were built out of 12-inch long sections of 8-inch diameter clear acrylic pipe. A rotary

machine was used to cope one end of each pipe section This allowed the tanks to sit flush on the

surface of the shaft (Figure 5.50). The tanks were sealed to the shafts using architectural grade

silicon and allowed to cure for 24 hours prior to charging the system with water (Figure 5.51).

Surface deterioration on several of the shafts prevented a watertight seal between the tank and

the concrete resulting in their exclusion from this portion of the testing protocol. The filled tanks

were left to sit for a minimum of 2 days prior to initial data collection to allow for surface

Figure 5.50 Milling end of tank (left)tank fit on shaft surface (right)

371

saturation.

Figure 5.51 Tanks installed on shafts

Titanium reference electrodes were constructed for continuous potential difference data

collection. Sections approximately four inches long were cut from a rod of activated titanium.

The ends were then filed to reveal bare metal and create a level surface. Taking care to protect

the surface coating, the rods were wrapped in cardboard and clamped into a lathe for drilling

(Figure 5.52). A hole approximately ¼-inch deep was drilled into one end of each rod (Figure

5.53) using a 1/16th inch cobalt-coated drill bit.

Figure 5.52 Drilled titanium rod Figure 5.53 Drilled out titanium rod

372

Chromium-nickel alloy wire with a Teflon coated insulation was used to connect the electrode to

the data logger (Figure 5.54). The properties of the metal in the wire and the metal in the

electrode necessitated the use of a mechanical connection. The wire coating was stripped back to

reveal ½ inch of bare metal (Figure 5.55). The wire was then folded back on itself and inserted

into the drilled end of the titanium rod and the connection was crimped using pliers to insure

connection stability.

Figure 5.54 Connection wire Figure 5.55 Wire pre installation

The reference electrodes were submerged in the tanks and suspended one inch from the shaft

surface. Care was taken to ensure that the electrodes were parallel and in line with the encased

vertical reinforcement. Shaft potential readings were taken with the positive lead attached to the

interconnected exposed reinforcement and the negative lead attached to the titanium electrode as

previously described. A twisted-wire-pair thermocouple was also placed in each tank, taking care

to separate the two sets of wires. All exposed ends were coated to prevent metallic deterioration

(Figure 5.56). The electrode and the thermocouple wire for each shaft were attached to a

Campbell Scientific CR1000 data collection system (Figure 5.57).

373

Figure 5.56 Testing tank

Figure 5.57 Open cell testing wiring diagram

Each tank was calibrated daily using a copper-copper sulfate reference electrode. This was

accomplished by attaching a voltmeter to the titanium reference electrode and the calibrating

copper-copper sulfate electrode. The value was recorded along with the time of measurement.

374

After seven days of continuous testing, the fresh water was exchanged for salt water. Salt water

was simulated by adding aquarium salt to fresh water until the specific gravity exceeded 1.028 as

measured by a hydrometer (Figure 5.58). Testing and daily calibration continued for seven days

after the introduction of salts.

Figure 5.58 Hydrometer used to test specific gravity

5.6.1 Testing Details

This test has been conducted three times to date:

Test one served as the pilot study. Over a three-week period in July of 2014, data was collected

from two shafts (Table 5.4). The tanks were placed on visible surface creases and calibration

data was collected inside each tank nine times at sporadic intervals.

Table 5.4 Test one details

Test One

Test

Duration

7/2/14 7/25/14

Shafts

Tested

Shaft 7 (B30)

Shaft 11 (P65)

375

Test two, conducted in December of 2016, shows data from nine shafts (Table 5.5). The tanks

were placed between visible creases, and calibration data was taken daily outside of each tank on

the surface of the shaft.

Table 5.5 Test two details

Test Two

Test

Duration

12/12/16 12/21/16

Shafts

Tested

Shaft 1 (B44)

Shaft 6 (Water)

Shaft 7 (B30)

Shaft 8 (B40)

Shaft 11 (P65)

Shaft 16 (P85

Shaft 17 (P85)

Shaft 19 (P63)

Shaft 20 (P121)

Test three, conducted in November of 2017, shows data from six shafts (Table 5.6). The tanks

were placed on visible creases and calibration data was collected inside each tank daily.

Table 5.6 Test three details

Test Three

Test

Duration

11/17/17 12/1/17

Shafts

Tested

Shaft 3 (B40)

Shaft 13 (B30)

Shaft 16 (P85)

Shaft 18 (Water)

Shaft 20 (P121)

Shaft 32 (Water)

5.6.2 Results

For each test, the raw potential readings between the rebar and the titanium reference electrode

were recorded and graphed as a function of time (Figures 5.59-5.61). The red line indicates the

point when chlorides were introduced to the system. Additionally, the daily copper-copper

sulfate calibration readings were graphed over time (Tables 5.7-5.9 and Figures 5.62-5.64).

376

Figure 5.59: Test one raw data

-700

-600

-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

6/27/14 7/2/14 7/7/14 7/12/14 7/17/14 7/22/14 7/27/14 8/1/14

Ti P

ote

nti

al (

mV

)

Shaft 7 Shaft 11

-700

-500

-300

-100

100

300

12/12/16 12/14/16 12/16/16 12/18/16 12/20/16 12/22/16

Po

tenti

al (

mV

)

Date

Shaft 22 Water Shaft 1 B40 Shaft 8 B40 Shaft 7 B30

Shaft 11 P60 Shaft 6 Water Shaft 17 P85 Shaft 19 P60

Shaft 20 P130 Shaft 18 Water Shaft 14 B30 Shaft 16 P85

377

Figure 5.60: Test two raw data

Figure 5.61: Test three raw data

Table 5.7: Test one calibration data

Date Shaft 7

Shaft

11

7/1/2014 32.2 4

7/2/2014 7.3 8.8

7/8/2014 19.3 41

7/8/2014 58.6 43.9

7/8/2014 -5.8 42.2

7/9/2014 -28 -271

7/10/2014 -27.6 -237

7/11/2014 -36.7 -284

-800

-600

-400

-200

0

200

400

600

800

11/15 11/17 11/19 11/21 11/23 11/25 11/27 11/29 12/1 12/3

Shaft 3 Shaft 13 Shaft 16 Shaft 18 Shaft 20 Shaft 32

378

7/15/2014 -14.3 -301

7/22/2014 -24.3 -309

7/25/2014 3.8 -322

Figure 5.62: Test one calibration lines

Table 5.8: Test two calibration data

Shaft #

Date 22 23 1 8 7 11 6 17 19 20 18 16

12/12/2016 86 57 -234 34 71 84 76 37 70

-

122 73 83

12/13/2016 71 45 -238 8 35 58 64 18 46

-

122 55 58

12/14/2016 78 53 -222 72 48 65 73 3 51

-

110 53 65

12/15/2016 67 20 -225 63 59 76 75 -23 47 -76 115 77

12/16/2016 63 35 -218 54 32 56 64 -29 48 -99 54 57

12/16/2016 63 35 -218 54 32 -95 64 -29 48 -99 54 57

12/17/2016 208

14

5 -274

-

109 -46 -108 -143

-

169 -30 -99 100 -117

-350

-300

-250

-200

-150

-100

-50

0

50

100

6/30 7/5 7/10 7/15 7/20 7/25 7/30

Cu/C

uS

O₄

(mV

)

Shaft 7 Shaft 11

379

12/18/2016 152

10

9 -254

-

130 -70 -135 -160

-

185 -75

-

109

-

164 -139

12/19/2016 146

10

7 -258

-

146 -98 -173 -163

-

210 -89

-

123

-

181 -152

12/20/2016 142 72 -258

-

148 -110 -182 -165

-

224

-

122

-

129

-

189 -159

12/21/2016 1

10

3 -254

-

148 -115 -175 -160

-

231

-

122

-

123

-

189 -150

Figure 5.63: Test two calibration lines

Table 5.9 Test three calibration data

Date

Shaft

13

Shaft

32

Shaft

16

Shaft

18 Shaft 3

Shaft

20

17-Nov -118 -185 -238 57 70 46

18-Nov -191 -206 -405 60 55 62

19-Nov -180 -194 -257 -33 -238 47

-300

-250

-200

-150

-100

-50

0

50

100

150

12-Dec 13-Dec 14-Dec 15-Dec 16-Dec 17-Dec 18-Dec 19-Dec 20-Dec 21-Dec 22-Dec

Cu/C

uS

O₄

(mV

)

Shaft 1 Shaft 8 Shaft 7 Shaft 11 Shaft 6

Shaft 17 Shaft 19 Shaft 20 Shaft 16

380

20-Nov -146 -176 -213 32 -206 69

21-Nov -217 -263 -289 41 -253 63

22-Nov -222 -247 -250 191 -242 56

23-Nov -208 -230 -241 49 -237 60

24-Nov -169 -212 -284 44 36 52

24-Nov 12 -149 -71 89 -191 65

25-Nov -366 -150 -517 -107 -27 -178

26-Nov -508 -397 -469 -264 -219 -154

27-Nov -529 -417 -503 -240 -533 -239

28-Nov -502 -400 -511 -199 -584 -212

29-Nov -457 -406 -503 -191 -587 -158

30-Nov -596 -502 -617 -380 -604 -169

1-Dec -522 -372 -543 -223 -548 -216

Figure 5.64 Test three calibration lines

Linear interpolation was used in order to apply the daily copper-copper sulfate readings to the

more frequent titanium electrode readings:

-700

-600

-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

15-Nov 17-Nov 19-Nov 21-Nov 23-Nov 25-Nov 27-Nov 29-Nov 1-Dec 3-Dec

Cu/C

uS

O₄

(mV

)

Shaft 3 Shaft 13 Shaft 16 Shaft 18 Shaft 20 Shaft 32

381

c

𝑅 = 𝑅𝑖 + [𝑅𝑓 − 𝑅𝑖] ×𝑡 − 𝑡𝑖𝑡𝑓 − 𝑡𝑖

Wherein:

R = current reading

Ri = initial reading

Rf = final reading

t = current time

ti = initial time

tf = final time

After all of the copper-copper sulfate readings were interpolated, those values were added to the

corresponding reading from the titanium reference electrode, resulting in the corrected potential

reading.

P(t) = M(t) + R’c (t)

P(t) is the corrected potential reading

M(t) titanium reference electrode reading

R’c(ti) is the Cu/CuSO4 reading at the time in question, mV

The resulting corrected graphs show distinct changes in potential at the point of chloride

introduction (Figures 5.65-5.67).

-700.00

-600.00

-500.00

-400.00

-300.00

-200.00

-100.00

0.00

100.00

200.00

7/1/14 7/6/14 7/11/14 7/16/14 7/21/14 7/26/14 7/31/14

Po

tenti

al (

mV

)

Shaft 7 Shaft 11

Add Cl- Solution

382

Figure5.65: Test one corrected data

Figure 5.66: Test two corrected data

Figure 5.67: Test three corrected data

-700

-600

-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

12/12/16 12/14/16 12/16/16 12/18/16 12/20/16 12/22/16

Po

tenti

al (

mV

)

Shaft 22 Water Shaft 1 B40 Shaft 8 B40 Shaft 7 B30

Shaft 11 P60 Shaft 6 Water Shaft 17 P85 Shaft 19 P60

Shaft 20 P130 Shaft 18 Water Shaft 14 B30 Shaft 16 P85

-800

-600

-400

-200

0

200

400

600

800

11/15/17 11/17/17 11/19/17 11/21/17 11/23/17 11/25/17 11/27/17 11/29/17 12/1/17 12/3/17

Po

ten

tial

(m

V)

Shaft 13 (B30) Shaft 32 (W) Shaft 16 (P85)

Shaft 18 (W) Shaft 3 (B40) Shaft 20 (P130)

Add Cl Solution

Add Cl Solution

383

Each of these tests reveals a similar trend wherein the potential becomes more negative after the

introduction of chlorides to the system. These trends are more pronounced in test one and test

three where the tanks were placed directly on top of the visible creases in the shaft surface. This

further reinforces the assertion that the creases are providing direct pathways to the encased

reinforcement system. Furthermore, the drop in potential is more pronounced in samples with a

higher level of trapped slurry induced surface degradation leading to the conclusion that surface

degradation is a valid indicator of probable corrosion.

5.7 Task Summary and Discussion

The goal of this task was to identify the effects of slurry type on the electrochemical properties

of drilled shafts. The premise of this approach was that the issues with concrete flow and surface

degradation addressed in Chapter 3 were negating the corrosion life span and initiation time

calculations customarily applied to reinforced concrete structures. Electrochemical testing

methods were implemented to reveal any indication of premature corrosion in the reinforcement

system.

Initially all preexisting shafts (1-24) were assessed for electrical continuity. This was

accomplished by testing both mutual potential and mutual resistance between each vertical piece

of reinforcing steel. When graphed, the data showed horizontal banding along the x axis between

0 and 5 mV and vertical banding just past 100 W. The area where these bands cross is a

statistically significant zone wherein the use of a single method of continuity assessment is

inconclusive.

A copper-copper sulfate reference electrode was used to collect potential difference data on an

eighty-point grid in order to map changes in potential across a portion of the surface of each

shaft. The corrosion potential surface mapping data was analyzed for each specimen individually.

Statistical methods were used to plot a distribution curve and determine the 50th

percentile

corrosion potential (E50) for every shaft. The E50 values vs slurry viscosity are shown in

Figure 5.69.

384

Figure 5.68 Viscosity vs median potential

ASTM C876 states that a potential reading below -350mV ( m o r e n e g a t i v e ) indicates a

90% chance of corrosion, so it is generally used as the threshold for corrosion activity. When

the 50th

percentile corrosion potential is plotted against the slurry viscosity, distinct divisions

become apparent (Figure 5.69); eight of the 14 shafts cast with mineral slurry fell below the

threshold of -350mV. This is a clear indicator that shafts cast using bentonite slurry are more

prone to corrosion than shafts cast using polymer. With a single exception, Polymer shafts

showed no indications of corrosion. Recall that the surface potential measurements were taken

with a freshwater wetted surface and where no chlorides had been introduced. It is likely that in

the presence of chlorides more of the shafts would have crossed the -350mV threshold.

Tanks were attached to the surfaces of select shafts in order to test the open-cell potential. Three

separate sets of tests were performed. At the midway point in each set the water in the tanks was

replaced with an electrolyte solution. The tanks that were placed over visible creases in the shaft

surface showed a nearly immediate drop in potential after the electrolyte was introduced,

indicating a direct path to the reinforcing steel. The most extreme reactions came from the shafts

with the worst surface conditions, further supporting the assertion that surface degradation can be

an indicator of corrosion potential in a reinforced concrete system.

In summary, there are several observations that can be made from this task:

When establishing electrical continuity, both potential and resistance measurements must be

taken.

Shafts constructed using polymer slurry or water showed low propensity for corrosion

Shafts constructed using mineral slurry show a higher propensity for corrosion as a rule

Surface creasing and degradation is indicative of a cover region that does not insulate reinforcing

steel

It should be noted here that this comes down to the difference between capillary transport due to

degradation in the concrete material and accelerated surface transport due to creasing. Increased

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

-700-600-500-400-300-200-1000

Vis

cost

iy (

sec)

E50 (mV) Bentonite Polymer Water Attapulgite

Corrosion potential

threshold

385

concrete durability may be a solution to the former whereas additional information in regards to

concrete rheology is needed to improve upon the latter.

5.8 Continued Efforts

Electrochemical testing has been completed for the 24 pre-existing shaft specimens. Surface

potential measurements have been completed on 12 newly cast shafts. These readings will serve

as a baseline and the tests will be repeated periodically to monitor any changes in potential that

may develop as the shafts age. Six more SCC shafts were cast during the first week in December

using a different concrete supplier, and 12 more SCC shafts are planned for construction later

this winter. All of these shafts will be tested electrochemically to bolster the data with the

expectation that the noted trends will be confirmed.

Quotes from commercial diving / construction firms are being sought for the removal of casing

on several bentonite, attapulgite, and water-cast shaft-supported bridges.

386

REFERENCES

AASHTO-AGC-ARTBA Joint Committee Subcommittee on New Highway Materials.

(1994) Guide to Specifications for Cathodic Protection of Concrete Bridge Decks, Task

Force 29 Report.

Alfi, Mehrdad, Benarjee, Nilanjana, Feys, Dimitri, Park, Joontaek, “Simulation of

Formwork Filling by Cement Fluid: the Effect of the Formwork Structure on Yield-stress

Fluid”. Excerpt from the Proceedings of the COMSOL conference in Boston 2013.

Bailey, Joseph D. “An evaluation of the use of Self Consolidating Concrete”. Master’s

Thesis, Auburn University, 2005.

Banfill, P.F.G. “The rheology of fresh cement and concrete” - School of the Built

Environment, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, EH14 4AS, UK, Rheology Reviews, pp

61-130, 2006.

Barnes, H, A., Hutton, J. F., Walters, K. “An Introduction to Rheology”, Elsevier science

publishers B.V., Amsterdam, 1989.

Barnes, H.A. “Thixotropy-a review.” Journal of Non-Newtonian Fluid Mechanics, 70 (1–

2): p. 1-33, 1997.

Brown, Dan A., Schindler, Anton, Auburn University “High Performance Concrete and

Drilled Shaft Construction”, GSP 158, Contemporary Issues in Deep Foundations.

Brown, Dan A., Bailey, Joe, Schindler, Anton, “The use of Self-Consolidating Concrete for

drilled shaft construction: Preliminary observations from the Lumber River Bridge Field

Trials” Proceedings of the ADSC GEC3 Conference, Dallas, TX, 2005.

Clear, K., Venugopalan, S., (1993) New Cathodic Protection Installations, Strategic

Highway Research Program, Washington, DC.

Cicek, V. (2013). Cathodic protection: Industrial solutions for protecting against corrosion.

Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Dufour, Frederic, Pijaudier-Cabot, Gilles, “Numerical modelling of concrete flow:

homogeneous approach”, International Journal For Numerical and Analytical Methods in

Geomechanics, 2005: 29: 395-416.

387

EFNARC: Specification and Guidelines for Self-Compacting Concrete, 2002.

European Guidelines for Self-Compacting Concrete –Specification, Production and Use,

2005.

Everett, D. H. “Basic principles of colloid science,” The Royal Society of Chemistry, Kyoto,

Japan, 23–27, 2000.

Ferraris, C. F., Larrard F. de, and N. Marys, “Fresh Concrete Rheology: Recent

Developments”, Building and Fire Research Laboratory, NIST, U.S. Department of

Commerce, Gaithersburg. Reprinted from Materials Science of Concrete VI, Sidney

Mindess and Jan Skalny, pp 215-241, 2001.

Ferraris C. F., Brower L. E. “Comparison of concrete rheometers”: International tests at

LCPC, NISTIR 6819, 2000.

Ferraris, C. F., Larrard F. de, “Testing and Modelling of Fresh Concrete Rheology” Building

and Fire Research Laboratory, NISTIR 6094, 1998, U.S. Department of Commerce, NIST,

Gaithersburg, MD 20899.

Feys, Dimitry et al. “Evaluation of Time Independent Rheological models Applicable to

Fresh Self-Compacting Concrete”, Applied Rheology Volume 17, Issue 5, 2007.

FHWA, Bridges & Structures. (2017). Bridges & Structures. Retrieved June 23, 2017, from

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/nbi/ascii.cfm?year=2016

Fontana, M.G. (1986). Corrosion engineering. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Gram, Annika, “Numerical Modelling of Self-Compacting Concrete Flow -Discrete and

Continuous Approach”, TRITA-BKN. Bulletin 99, ISSN 1103-4270, ISRN KTH/BKN/B–

99–Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) Department of Civil and Architectural

Engineering, Stockholm, Sweden, 2009.

Gram, Annika, Johan Silfwerbrand, “Numerical simulation of fresh SCC flow: application”,

Journal of Materials and Structures, 2011, 44: 805-813.

388

Gujjar, Ashok H., “Report No. BD 503 FDOT. Mix Design and Testing of Self

Consolidating Concrete using Florida Materials”. Department of Civil Engineering, Embry –

Riddle Aeronautical University, Daytona Beach, FL 32114, 2004.

Hazaree, Chetan V. et al. “Use of Chemical Admixtures in Roller Compacted Concrete for

Pavement” PCA R&D Serial No. 3243, 2010.

Hocevar, Andraz, Kavcic, Franci, Bokan-Bosiljkov, Violeta, “Rheological Parameters of

Fresh Concrete – Comparison of Rheometers”. Gradevinar 65, pp. 99-109, 2013.

Hodgson III, Donald, Schindler, Anton K., Brown, Dan A., Stroup-Gardiner, Mary, “Self-

Consolidating Concrete for Use in Drilled Shaft Applications”, Journal of Materials in Civil

Engineering, 2005.

Kean, R. L., Davies, K.G. (1981) Cathodic Protection, Department of Trade and Industry

Guideline. London, United Kingdom.

Kentucky Department for Environmental Protection (2011) Continuity Testing Procedure

for Impressed Current Cathodic Protection System Evaluation DEP8053. Frankfort, KY.

Khayat (PI), Kamal H., Universite de Sherbrooke, David Bonen (co-PI), Purdue University,

Surendra Shah, Northwestern University, Peter Taylor, CTL Group. “SCC Formwork

Pressure, Task 1: Capturing Existing Knowledge on Formwork Pressure Exerted by

SCC” Submitted to The National RMC Research Foundation and The Strategic

Development Council, ACI. February 13, 2007.

Khayat, Kamal H., Tangtermsirikul, Somuk, “Fresh concrete properties - State of the

Report”, (23) of RILEM Technical Committee, 174 - SCC, 2000.

Khayat, Kamal H., Omran, A., University de Sherbrooke, “State-of-the-Art Review of Form

Pressure Exerted by SCC”, Submitted to RMC Research Foundation and The Strategic

Development Council.

Khayat, Kamal H., Guizani, Zubeir, “Use of viscosity-modifying admixture to enhance

stability of fluid concrete”. ACI Material Journal 94: p. 332- 341, 1997.

389

Koehler, Eric P. “Thixotropy of SCC and its effects on Formwork Pressure”. ACI

Convention, Minneapolis, Minnesota, Spring 2013.

Kokado, T., Hosoda, T., Miyagawa, T. “Methods for evaluating rheological coefficients of

self-compacting concrete by numerical analysis”. JSCE, No.648/V-47, 2000:51–70.

Lashkarbolouk, Hadi, Halabian, Amir M., Chamani, Mohamad R. , “Simulation of concrete

in V-funnel test and the proper range of viscosity and yield stress for SCC”, Journal of

Materials and Structures, 2014: 47: 1729-1743.

Lomboy, Gilson, “Particle Interaction and Rheological behavior of cement based materials

at micro and macro scales”, Graduate Theses Dissertation, Iowa State University, 2012.

Madrio, Huber, Anderson, Laurie, McFarlane, Paul, Koschel, Rick , Roads and Maritime

Services (RMS), Australia, “Influence of Placement Method to In-Place Hardened

Properties of Deep Foundation Using SCC”, 25th

Austroads Bridge Conferences, Sydney,

New South Wale, 2014.

Mechtcherine, Viktor, Gram, Annika, Krenzer, Knut, Schwabe, Jorg-Henry, Shyshko,

Sergiy, Roussel, Nicolas, “Simulation of fresh concrete flow using Discrete Element Method

(DEM): theory and applications” – Journal of Materials and Structures, 2014, 47: 615-630.

Morsei, L., Dufour, F., Muhlhaus, H-B. “A Lagrangian integration point finite element

method for large deformation modeling of viscoelastic geomaterials”. Journal of

Computational Physics, Vol. 184, 2003, pp. 476–497.

Mullins, G. “Engineering Analysis and Review on the use of plastic wheel type spacers for

drilled shafts along I-595 corridor in Brown Country, 2012.

Mullins, G. and Winters, D. “Infrared Thermal Integrity Testing, Detect Quality Assurance

test method to detect Drilled shaft Defects” –WSDOT Research Report, June 2011.

Mullins, G, and Ashmawy, A., “Factors Affecting Anomaly Formation in Drilled shafts” –

Final Report, March 2005.

390

Murayama, S., Shibata, T. “On The Rheological Characters of clay”, Disaster Prevention

Research Institute, Bulletin No. 26, 1958.

National Association of Corrosion Engineers. (2016). NACE Standard Practice: Sacrificial

Cathodic Protection of Reinforcing Steel in Atmospherically Exposed Concrete Structures.

Houston, Tex: ISBN: 1-57590-331-8

National Association of Corrosion Engineers. (2007). NACE Standard Practice: Impressed

Current Cathodic Protection of Reinforcing Steel in Atmospherically Exposed Concrete

Structures. Houston, Tex: ISBN: 1-57590-103-X

Okamura, Hajime, M.O. “Self-Compacting Concrete”. Journal of Advanced Concrete

Technology, 1(1): p. 5-15, 2003.

Ozyildirim, Celik, Stephen R. Sharp, “Evaluation of Drilled Shafts with Self-Consolidating

Concrete” Virginia Center for Transportation Innovation and Research, TRB Annual

Meeting, 2013.

Park, C. K., Noh, M. H., Park, T. H. “Rheological properties of cementitious materials

containing mineral admixtures” Cement and Concrete Research 35, 2005, 842– 849, 2004.

Pedley, T. J., “Introduction to Fluid Dynamics”, Department of Applied Mathematics and

Theoretical Physics, Scientia Marina, 61 (Supl. 1): 7-24, 1997 University of Cambridge,

U.K.

Puri, U. C., Uomoto, T. “Numerical modeling-a new tool for understanding shotcrete. Mater

Structures, Vol. 32, 1999: 32:266–272.

Rausche, Frank, Heather See, Brent Robinson, Mark Kurtz and Emmanuel Attioghe,

“Quality Assurance for Drilled Shafts Using Self-Consolidating Concrete”, 2005.

Robertson, Ian N., University of Hawaii at Manoa, “Use of Self- Consolidating Concrete For

Bridge Drilled Shaft Construction”, Research Report UHM/CEE/12-09, December 2012.

Roussel, N., Gram, Annika, Chapter-1, “Physical Phenomena involved in flows of Fresh

cementitious materials”, RILEM Publication on Simulation of fresh Concrete flow. STAR

Report, STAR 222-SCF, 2014.

391

Roussel, N., Mette, R. Geiker, Dufour, Frédéric, Thrane, Lars N., Szabo, Peter,

“Computational modeling of concrete flow: General overview”, Journal of cement and

concrete research, 37, 2007, 1298 -1307.

Roussel, N., “The LCPC BOX: a cheap and simple technique for yield stress measurements

of SCC”, Journal of Materials and Structures, 2007, 40: 889 - 896.

Roussel, N., “Steady and Transient flow behavior of fresh cement pastes”, Journal of

Cement and Concrete Research, 35, 2005, 29: 1656-1664.

Roussel, N. “A Thixotropy model for fresh fluid concretes: Theory, validation and

applications,” Journal of Cement and Concrete Research, 36, 2006, 29: 1797-1806.

Roussel, N., “Correlation between yield stress and slump: Comparison between numerical

simulations and concrete rheometers results.” Materials and Structures, Vol. 37(4), 2006, pp.

469-477.

Roussel, N; Staquet, S; Schwarzentruber, L. D’Aloia; Le Roy, R.; Touttlemonde,F; “SCC

casting prediction for the realization of prototype VHPC-precambered composite beams.

Materials and Structures”, Vol. 40, 2007, pp. 877-887.

Roussel, N., Coussot, P. ‘‘Fifty-cent rheometer for yield stress measurements: from slump to

spreading flow”. Journal of Rheology, 2005, 49:705–718.

Sagues, A. A., Powers, R. G. (1995). Sprayed Zinc Galvanic Anode for Corrosion Protection

of Marine Substructure Reinforced Concrete. IDEA project Final Report. Transportation

Research Board-National Research Council

Sergiy Shyshko avs Charkiw, Ukarin “Numerical simulation of the Rheological behavior of

fresh concrete”. Doctoral dissertation, 2002.

Sika Chemical Corporation (2010) Specification for Cathodic Protection of Reinforced

Concrete Structures using Vented Internal Discrete Anodes. Impressed Current Cathodic

Protection 13110.

392

Sweet, Joseph G., “Implementation of SCC IBN caisson construction for the Stalnaker Run

Bridge”, Journal of Construction and Building Materials 34, 2012, 545-553.

Thrane, L.N.; Szabo, P.; Geiker, M.; Glavind, M.; Stand, H. “Simulation of the test method

“L-box” for self-compacting concretes”. In: Annual transactions of the Nordic Rheology

Conference, Reykjavik, Iceland; Vol. 12, 2003, pp. 47–54.

Thrane, Nyholm L., “Form filling with self-compacting concrete”, Ph.D. thesis, 2007,

Danish Technological Institute.

Tinnea, Jack & Li, Lianfang & Hartt, William & Sagues, Alberto & Pianca, Frank & Chandler,

Bryant. (2006). Corrosion in Bridges and Highways. 558-597.

Utsi, Sofia, Emborgo, Mats, Carlsword, Jonas, (2003). “Relation between workability and

Rheological Parameters,” Proceedings of the 3rd

International RILEM Self-Compacting

Concrete, O. Wallevik and I. Nielsson, Ed., RILEM Publications, 2003, pp. 154 – 163.

van Waarde, Fredrick, “Formwork pressures when casting Self Compacting Concrete”.

Master’s Thesis, 2007, Concrete Structures, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Technical

University of Delft.

Wallevik, O. H. “Rheology – A Scientific Approach to Develop Self-Compacting

Concrete,” Proceedings of the 3rd

International RILEM Symposium on Self-Compacting

Concrete, 2003, pp. 23 – 31.

Wallevik, O. H., 2011. “Rheology – My way of Life”, 36th

Conference on Our World in

Concrete and Structures, Singapore, August 14-16, 2011.

Wallevik, J.E. “Rheology of Particle suspensions, Fresh Concrete, Mortar, and cement paste

with various Lignosulfonates”. The Norwegian University of Science and Technology,

Trondheim, 2003.

Yang, Frances, “Self-Consolidating Concrete”, CE 241: Concrete Technology Spring 2004.

393

Yavuz, Hasan, “Effects of Thixotropy on Self Consolidating Concrete surface properties”.

Master’s Thesis, 2012, Civil Engineering, Izmir Institute of Technology.

Zhuguo, Li, Taka-aki Ohkubo, and Yasuo Tanigawa, “Flow Performance of High Fluidity

Concrete”, Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, Vol. 16, No. 6, December 1, 2004.

Zhuguo, Li, Taka-aki Ohkubo, and Yasuo Tanigawa . “Yield Model of High Fluidity

Concrete in Fresh State”, Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, Vol. 16, No.3, June 1,

2004.

Zhuguo, Li, “State of workability design technology for fresh concrete in Japan”, Journal of

Cement and Concrete Research, 37, 2007, 1308-1320.

https://www.google.com time vs. apparent viscosity curve for thixotropic and rheopectic

fluid.

http://www.theconcreteportal.com/rheology.html.

http://www.selfconsolidatingconcrete.org.

http://water.sam.usace.army.mil/acfframe.htm

http://uglybridges.com

APPENDIX A

SURFACE POTENTIAL MAPPING RAW DATA & STATISTICAL DISTRIBUTION

Table A-1: Shaft 1 Surface Potential Mapping Raw Data (mV)

0"` 3" 6" 9" 12" 15" 18" 21"

0" -266 -289 -333 -337 -313 -298 -296 -289

3" -279 -292 -316 -317 -311 -301 -300 -293

6" -290 -302 -312 -312 -308 -306 -307 -303

http://www.theconcreteportal.com/rheology.htmlhttp://www.selfconsolidatingconcrete.org/

9" -290 -308 -315 -312 -309 -310 -308 -307

12" -307 -316 -315 -318 -317 -314 -311 -302

15" -309 -317 -319 -325 -324 -322 -320 -311

18" -314 -323 -324 -332 -330 -328 -327 -320

21" -323 -330 -330 -338 -338 -342 -331 -322

24" -327 -330 -338 -344 -345 -348 -337 -329

27" -328 -333 -338 -344 -347 -349 -338 -337

Figure A-1: Shaft 1 Surface Potential Mapping Data Distribution


0” 3” 6” 9” 12” 15” 18” 21”

0” -384 -387 -406 -421 -434 -438 -431 -411

3” -402 -398 -416 -431 -454 -456 -446 -434

6” -400 -403 -420 -442 -460 -464 -461 -454

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

-600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0

%



9” -392 -408 -430 -452 -466 -474 -472 -465

12” -402 -417 -447 -463 -476 -470 -462 -459

15” -402 -416 -445 -463 -474 -478 -463 -462

18” -395 -410 -460 -468 -482 -477 -458 -449

21” -396 -404 -466 -483 -492 -485 -469 -449

24” -389 -400 -444 -470 -481 -472 -461 -440

27” -390 -398 -428 -467 -472 -472 -461 -447



0" 3" 6" 9" 12" 15" 18" 21"

0" -372 -382 -389 -390 -396 -396 -384 -379

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

-600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0

%



3" -373 -378 -381 -382 -393 -386 -381 -378

6" -374 -374 -377 -377 -379 -380 -373 -379

9" -376 -368 -372 -359 -361 -360 -363 -379

12" -370 -364 -369 -352 -351 -353 -351 -369

15" -374 -366 -360 -350 -349 -353 -346 -361

18" -377 -360 -364 -352 -356 -355 -355 -354

21" -379 -361 -380 -359 -364 -367 -370 -378

24" -379 -367 -378 -368 -368 -380 -382 -383

27" -373 -367 -374 -376 -376 -378 -381 -388



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

-600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0

%



0" 3" 6" 9" 12" 15" 18" 21"

0" -411 -441 -447 -462 -472 -454 -437 -425

3" -443 -453 -463 -472 -453 -433 -423

6" -442 -444 -447 -467 -473 -459 -434 -419

9" -429 -434 -439 -463 -474 -458 -427 -415

12" -427 -435 -458 -470 -458 -433 -409

15" -429 -435 -454 -461 -450 -437 -414

18" -425 -426 -444 -458 -473 -459 -445 -433

21" -413 -425 -437 -470 -471 -461 -451 -439

24" -420 -422 -430 -452 -466 -458 -449 -439

27" -418 -417 -423 -449 -459 -463 -451 -443


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

-600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0

%




0" 3" 6" 9" 12" 15" 18" 21"

0" -400 -408 -425 -447 -469 -482 -484 -475

3" -408 -413 -428 -456 -476 -489 -494 -489

6" -413 -416 -432 -460 -473 -482 -492 -485

9" -413 -415 -433 -457 -466 -467 -470 -464

12" -407 -402 -422 -450 -459 -465 -463 -455

15" -390 -402 -416 -440 -441 -445 -459 -449

18" -394 -402 -413 -433 -433 -435 -437 -426

21" -392 -407 -416 -441 -448 -450 -457 -450

24" -401 -416 -435 -452 -457 -469 -469 -469

27" -412 -420 -432 -450 -460 -465 -469 -457


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

-600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0

%




0" 3" 6" 9" 12" 15" 18" 21"

0" -160 -148 -144 -139 -129 -131 -141 -155

3" -168 -157 -143 -135 -130 -131 -141 -153

6" -170 -163 -158 -147 -136 -138 -138 -142

9" -168 -161 -153 -140 -128 -127 -140 -144

12" -169 -161 -155 -145 -134 -129 -141 -146

15" -170 -164 -157 -130 -142 -139 -143 -152

18" -172 -167 -163 -136 -148 -149 -150 -152

21" -174 -172 -166 -159 -155 -156 -156 -153

24" -174 -174 -167 -168 -156 -159 -159 -160

27" -176 -174 -161 -165 -159 -161 -161 -157

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

-600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0

%





0" 3" 6" 9" 12" 15" 18" 21"

0" -331 -331 -329 -338 -344 -350 -361 -361

3" -339 -340 -339 -343 -345 -354 -372 -382

6" -340 -346 -345 -348 -351 -366 -386 -402

9" -352 -352 -354 -356 -361 -375 -398 -409

12" -357 -358 -362 -364 -380 -398 -419 -422

15" -354 -363 -373 -376 -398 -421 -444 -437

18" -365 -364 -374 -383 -399 -430 -468 -454

21" -364 -368 -377 -393 -400 -436 -462 -475

24" -366 -369 -378 -395 -416 -436 -459 -466

27" -364 -363 -378 -393 -415 -442 -458 -480

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

-600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0

%





0" 3" 6" 9" 12" 15" 18" 21"

0" -239 -243 -234 -233 -215 -211 -210 -215

3" -233 -241 -237 -236 -218 -213 -220 -216

6" -223 -221 -237 -235 -222 -213 -216 -209

9" -226 -232 -235 -225 -213 -209 -208 -209

12" -234 -235 -231 -227 -218 -217 -214 -212

15" -255 -247 -239 -234 -226 -227 -229 -225

18" -251 -238 -232 -227 -223 -212 -227 -219

21" -245 -242 -236 -233 -223 -216 -215 -216

24" -243 -238 -234 -230 -215 -214 -218 -223

27" -240 -239 -233 -224 -219 -211 -209 -216



0" 3" 6" 9" 12" 15" 18" 21"

0" -362 -364 -372 -381 -391 -410 -423 -424

3" -356 -364 -368 -373 -385 -402 -420 -418

6" -359 -359 -367 -383 -393 -413 -427 -430

9" -362 -367 -370 -384 -397 -416 -427 -423

12" -363 -366 -373 -382 -400 -415 -425 -419

15" -372 -371 -375 -385 -399 -416 -421 -417

18" -371 -372 -375 -379 -392 -403 -409 -410

21" -365 -366 -367 -373 -392 -392 -396 -404

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

-600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0

%



24" -363 -365 -368 -375 -387 -387 -390 -396

27" -357 -356 -366 -369 -383 -383 -387 -389



0" 3" 6" 9" 12" 15" 18" 21"

0" -263 -271 -268 -267 -266 -265 -266 -258

3" -264 -273 -272 -274 -272 -274 -271 -260

6" -269 -278 -280 -281 -280 -287 -283 -266

9" -272 -282 -283 -287 -287 -291 -282 -269

12" -273 -283 -287 -288 -287 -285 -280 -273

15" -285 -295 -292 -295 -290 -290 -293 -274

18" -289 -299 -298 -298 -293 -3030 -293 -271

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

-600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0

%



21" -297 -299 -296 -290 -287 -286 -287 -268

24" -299 -312 -310 -308 -296 -297 -285 -278

27" -305 -318 -322 -326 -291 -297 -289 -278



0" 3" 6" 9" 12" 15" 18" 21"

0" -184 -188 -181 -176 -173 -174 -175 -170

3" -195 -201 -189 -186 -181 -176 -175 -173

6" -196 -201 -197 -191 -179 -172 -171 -168

9" -204 -210 -200 -190 -179 -174 -170 -170

12" -225 -217 -201 -193 -185 -179 -171 -170

15" -220 -220 -206 -193 -191 -178 -176 -172

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

-600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0

%


CuCuSO4 Grid Testing 11

18" -226 -222 -210 -206 -199 -187 -183 -187

21" -220 -220 -213 -205 -195 -189 -185 -185

24" -219 -221 -212 -204 -206 -186 -188 -181

27" -218 -221 -212 -206 -199 -192 -186 -187



0" 3" 6" 9" 12" 15" 18" 21"

0" -306 -300 -291 -288 -286 -285 -285 -289

3" -305 -298 -291 -291 -290 -285 -286 -286

6" -305 -299 -294 -289 -286 -284 -287 -285

9" -303 -297 -293 -290 -285 -286 -285 -284

12" -304 -299 -294 -291 -286 -285 -282 -282

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

-600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0

%



15" -307 -300 -296 -291 -285 -281 -280 -278

18" -303 -302 -294 -290 -286 -283 -278 -278

21" -297 -300 -300 -293 -288 -286 -283 -277

24" -309 -302 -302 -293 -290 -288 -284 -280

27" -310 -306 -301 -293 -289 -285 -283 -278



0" 3" 6" 9" 12" 15" 18" 21"

0" -315 -300 -291 -282 -273 -248 -255 -263

3" -307 -296 -292 -284 -235 -214 -230 -251

6" -298 -299 -294 -289 -280 -243 -245 -268

9" -300 -294 -291 -285 -280 -276 -253 -281

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

-600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0

%



12" -298 -293 -288 -285 -285 -280 -270 -268

15" -302 -295 -288 -284 -281 -281 -275 -279

18" -297 -293 -289 -284 -279 -277 -276 -278

21" -300 -296 -291 -284 -278 -276 -276 -277

24" -301 -297 -291 -283 -274 -262 -262 -270

27" -304 -298 -294 -286 -277 -270 -267 -273



0" 3" 6" 9" 12" 15" 18" 21"

0"

-349 -350 -351 -340 -339 -347

3"

-339 -345 -340 -338 -338 -341

6"

-337 -336 -338 -340 -330 -335 -336

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

-600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0

%



9"

-335 -334 -333 -327 -328 -331 -334

12"

-330 -330 -327 -327 -329 -334

15"

-332 -337 -331 -328 -330 -332 -336

18"

-337 -336 -335 -332 -331 -334 -337

21"

-344 -336 -335 -328 -327 -333 -339

24"

-349 -348 -341 -338 -332 -337 -341

27" -362 -357 -344 -341 -337 -333 -336 -337



0" 3" 6" 9" 12" 15" 18" 21"

0" -291 -278 -271 -266 -259 -256 -261 -251

3" -298 -287 -279 -275 -269 -266 -271 -262

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

-600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0

%



6" -298 -294 -286 -278 -272 -271 -270 -264

9" -292 -290 -283 -276 -277 -275 -271 -265

12" -293 -290 -284 -274 -270 -273 -275 -269

15" -292 -291 -289 -279 -278 -280 -278 -271

18" -293 -288 -284 -278 -275 -278 -282 -275

21" -292 -290 -285 -283 -279 -279 -284 -279

24" -293 -290 -289 -283 -280 -283 -284 -283

27" -289 -288 -286 -282 -280 -281 -286 -286



0" 3" 6" 9" 12" 15" 18" 21"

0" -309 -303 -301 -301 -299 -305 -304 -304

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

-600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0

%



3" -306 -306 -303 -303 -302 -299 -303 -301

6" -309 -307 -303 -308 -304 -299 -298 -300

9" -306 -305 -302 -299 -293 -291 -294 -293

12" -312 -310 -304 -298 -298 -292 -296 -290

15" -319 -312 -304 -303 -298 -295 -295 -288

18" -322 -311 -302 -296 -293 -290 -291 -288

21" -319 -310 -301 -300 -292 -288 -287 -285

24" -311 -310 -302 -297 -291 -287 -285 -286

27" -305 -306 -297 -295 -290 -286 -285 -280



0" 3" 6" 9" 12" 15" 18" 21"

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

-600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0

%



0" -301 -304 -291 -291 -284 -295 -300 -302

3" -300 -302 -290 -285 -282 -290 -299 -307

6" -299 -303 -291 -284 -282 -292 -299 -306

9" -294 -297 -290 -286 -284 -293 -299 -304

12" -295 -293 -285 -281 -283 -290 -293 -300

15" -296 -298 -285 -282 -285 -291 -291 -298

18" -296 -296 -288 -283 -292 -293 -295 -292

21" -301 -297 -291 -288 -294 -293 -297 -303

24" -302 -298 -291 -290 -293 -287 -294 -297

27" -299 -297 -291 -297 -302 -295 -297 -301



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

-600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0

%



0" 3" 6" 9" 12" 15" 18" 21"

0" -243 -238 -234 -231 -230 -225 -229 -234

3" -242 -242 -238 -234 -235 -230 -234 -240

6" -246 -246 -238 -235 -231 -235 -241 -247

9" -256 -250 -242 -234 -235 -238 -243 -255

12" -258 -251 -241 -232 -230 -235 -248 -265

15" -265 -259 -249 -243 -238 -240 -248 -259

18" -263 -258 -247 -243 -240 -241 -245 -249

21" -260 -258 -250 -243 -244 -243 -246 -245

24" -268 -263 -255 -247 -244 -245 -248 -249

27" -275 -263 -250 -242 -240 -239 -246 -252


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

-600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0

%




0" 3" 6" 9" 12" 15" 18" 21"

0" -239 -234 -225 -231 -235 -238 -243 -235

3" -222 -231 -231 -231 -236 -236 -244 -247

6" -239 -236 -235 -238 -239 -239 -241 -237

9" -233 -233 -240 -241 -242 -242 -238 -242

12" -241 -242 -241 -241 -242 -242 -242 -245

15" -248 -244 -248 -245 -239 -239 -242 -243

18" -253 -250 -251 -245 -245 -245 -242 -241

21" -253 -252 -251 -246 -246 -246 -254 -245

24" -251 -253 -250 -247 -247 -247 -250 -250

27" -259 -259 -254 -253 -255 -255 -251 -249

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

-600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0

%





0" 3" 6" 9" 12" 15" 18" 21"

0" -491 -492 -495 -518 -552 -534 -548 -596

3" -482 -489 -489 -493 -533 -524 -527 -500

6" -480 -481 -489 -484 -508 -493 -509 -495

9" -491 -489 -488 -497 -522 -493 -516 -502

12" -485 -464 -488 -486 -511 -501 -522 -506

15" -495 -494 -488 -492 -496 -494 -502 -511

18" -500 -497 -508 -513 -536 -524 -529 -524

21" -504 -505 -516 -528 -560 -538 -539 -516

24" -508 -503 -508 -522 -540 -547 -556 -520

27" -510 -510 -536 -538 -573 -558 -564 -542



0" 3" 6" 9" 12" 15" 18" 21"

0" -268 -264 -248 -244 -243 -236 -230 -243

3" -265 -273 -255 -247 -237 -237 -241 -248

6" -281 -277 -268 -254 -244 -240 -248 -251

9" -272 -281 -276 -261 -255 -252 -248 -250

12" -263 -272 -261 -246 -238 -238 -237 -239

15" -257 -259 -248 -240 -236 -234 -241 -246

18" -261 -260 -247 -237 -237 -239 -244 -252

21" -277 -278 -262 -249 -245 -247 -256 -269

24" -279 -279 -266 -249 -245 -251 -259 -277

27" -280 -279 -265 -250 246 -249 -256 -268

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

-600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0

%





0" 3" 6" 9" 12" 15" 18" 21"

0" -273 -265 -264 -260 -258 -262 -263 -269

3" -276 -263 -263 -260 -258 -262 -268 -273

6" -272 -262 -263 -257 -258 -263 -270 -260

9" -271 -260 -261 -255 -255 -282 -269 -261

12" -271 -259 -258 -254 -253 -283 -271 -260

15" -266 -256 -251 -248 -252 -255 -264 -277

18" -265 -255 -253 -247 -249 -250 -258 -269

21" -261 -254 -246 -243 -242 -246 -250 -257

24" -261 -252 -246 -241 -236 -241 -245 -254

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

-600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300

%



27" -261 -254 -246 -237 -233 -238 -243 -250



0" 3" 6" 9" 12" 15" 18" 21"

0" -450 -453 -449 -452 -464 -446 -413 -393

3" -439 -447 -443 -445 -456 -441 -410 -394

6" -436 -443 -441 -430 -464 -443 -416 -400

9" -433 -441 -442 -442 -469 -455 -425 -404

12" -429 -436 -438 -444 -464 -454 -423 -404

15" -423 -429 -437 -444 -465 -456 -424 -407

18" -414 -421 -425 -434 -454 -433 -414 -403

21" -411 -412 -421 -425 -437 -422 -398 -394

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

-600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0

%


Shaft 23

24" -410 -408 -408 -408 -412 -401 -390 -389

27" -404 -399 -395 -405 -403 -395 -389 -384



0" 3" 6" 9" 12" 15" 18" 21"

0" -398 -408 -409 -422 -421 -416 -412 -406

3" -403 -409 -407 -422 -419 -421 -410 -410

6" -413 -408 -406 -422 -418 -419 -410 -412

9" -420 -410 -403 -423 -417 -419 -407 -410

12" -431 -421 -415 -414 -416 -424 -411 -408

15" -443 -430 -419 -414 -414 -418 -412 -406

18" -455 -449 -435 -406 -415 -414 -418 -402

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

-600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0

%


CuCuSo4 Grid Testing Shaft 24

21" -463 -451 -438 -407 -417 -419 -415 -404

24" -472 -458 -438 -409 -418 -419 -413 -404

27" -472 -456 -438 -411 -416 -415 -407 -409



0" 3" 6" 9" 12" 15" 18" 21"

0" -341 -328 -308 -293 -292 -304 -335 -367

3" -339 -326 -305 -291 -290 -304 -329 -359

6" -344 -325 -305 -291 -288 -299 -325 -350

9" -344 -330 -310 -291 -289 -299 -321 -349

12" -351 -334 -314 -298 -292 -300 -322 -349

15" -363 -346 -321 -307 -301 -308 -325 -353

18" -373 -353 -335 -313 -305 -309 -329 -360

-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

-600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0

%



21" -383 -367 -342 -321 -310 -318 -335 -363

24" -397 -379 -350 -336 -314 -319 -337 -369

27" -403 -382 -355 -327 -315 -318 -341 -368



0" 3" 6" 9" 12" 15" 18" 21"

0" -222 -232 -237 -244 -254 -259 -265 -292

3" -224 -232 -231 -241 -255 -263 -2

EVALUATION OF SELF CONSOLIDATING CONCRETE AND …geotech.eng.usf.edu/Downloads/2018-0124_Return...

Documents

Transcript of EVALUATION OF SELF CONSOLIDATING CONCRETE AND …geotech.eng.usf.edu/Downloads/2018-0124_Return...